LaurieAG

If you can get something like aluminium foil or even paper it might not deform as much. Even a thin foil insert at the top might work with the plastic bag.

Calculus and programming are more like complementary skills that go hand in hand so if you are just interested in specialising in one area it may not be a problem. On the other hand if you want to get into design and development or engineering, across a wide range of industries, then you must have a good understanding of things like discrete math as well as calculus. What other maths subjects are you studying atm aimforthehead.

I have known two mates in the past who had similar conversational styles (along your gradient from 1-10, both started at 5), both were stylish and had good relationships with women but one was gay and one was not. One went down to take a role in 'Cats' for 2 years in another state capital and came back with an arrogant slant on his conversational style with men (gradient 2), compared with before, so it appears that there is some kind of experiental aspect, at least with regards to changes to conversational styles and attitudes. I saw him after another 5 years and his conversation style was back to normal (gradient 5), from my perspective anyway, while my other mate did not really change.

Hi Yuri, Note that the reduced Compton wavelength is used in relation to Planck length and is proportional to the Planck mass while the Compton wavelength is proportional to the inverse of the mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength

Hi PsychGirl and Miser, I am an ENTJ who had a non technical supervisor and manager. It was a bit of a worry actually and I do not work for that company anymore. While you as a INFP understand why you learned to function as an ENTJ PsychGirl, do you think the opposite should be true for technical roles or is there a limit? I am an applied scientist so I would be interested in hearing what you think.

Pi is fascinating because, when derived from distances or time, it becomes a dimensionless constant. If I started photographing the sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the circle was 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the time between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi. In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed. If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle. In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B. On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object. On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation. On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation. This should be what we see when we observe light from an undistorted source rotating around a galactic centre that is stationary.

The soil/particles comes out with the drilling mud/water after being loosened by the chopping bit. The drilling mud is used to prevent the sides of the bore from caving in so it would not be needed if the bore was cased. The link refers to collecting samples from the bore which would involve replacing the chopping bit with a sampling bit.

He was asphyxiated while destroying equipment, the CIA was in control of the Libyan embassy at the time and the head of the CIA has recently resigned.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68634-dark-matter-and-compton-wavelengths/ I suppose it depends if you are in a black hole looking out or are actually outside of the 'wonderland' looking in.

And as a result of that convenience, especially when rotating sources are considered in dark matter calculations, it appears that the speed of the electrons are being increased (and therefore giving an artificial increase in relative mass) instead of regarding the sources rotation speed as being increased with the rest mass remaining constant as well as the photon stream emitting from that mass. You will always capture the same amount of light from a rotating source during a fixed period of observation whether the source is rotating at x, 2x, 3x etc. This is where our observation point is and this is where the quantum calculations should come back full circle, out of necessity not convenience.

The difference between the two is 2 x Pi and if you divide the latest quantum perceived 'dark' matter/energy by 2 x Pi there is very little 'dark' matter/energy. I read many of the latest 'dark' matter papers and while I could only find one that derived from the non reduced form down to the reduced form I could not find a single paper that went back to the non reduced form. It is very strange as the difference is quite clear. http://en.wikipedia....pton_wavelength

What about the Compton wavelength (rest mass) and the reduced Compton wavelength (relative mass).

It's probably just as well that Ferdinand Magellan ignored the risk of falling off the edge of the world to circumnavigate it. He assumed that as long as wherever you move to is connected to wherever you moved from and you travel at relatively finite velocities for fixed distances you can map your progress. It is called dead reconing navigation in coastal waters and its modern offshore partner is called celestial navigation. Whether the world was physically round or flat was decided once and for all when his boat came back in, not before, same goes for now.

Long-slit Spectroscopy provides a 90 degree twist on the doppler effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-slit_spectroscopy in an expanding universe?

I don't think Socrates was a troll. But if you ever did manage to classify him as a troll you would also have to consider him as Plato's sock puppet.

You refer to the much higher percentage of the population who have sickle cell anaemia in areas of Africa susceptible to 'sleeping sickness' (Human African trypanosomiasis) caused by the Tsetse Fly. At university (in the 90's) this was described as a local example of continuing human evolution (survival of the fittest). Inbreeding between people with this disease would serve no purpose and give no extra benefit so it is not a good example.

Hi Jacques, Regardless of what mass you use the following applies. The largest Compton wavelength (rest mass) in the visible universe would currently be 13.7 Billion ly long and this would have a reduced form (relative mass) of 13.7 B ly/(2 * Pi). The Schwarzchild radius is twice the reduced Compton wavelength for the mass so the circumference of the event horizon of a black hole with all of the visible universes mass would be 13.7 Billion ly/Pi (i.e. reduced Compton wavelength x 2). http://en.wikipedia....pton_wavelength

I only showed the paths of all the photons that could only travel from the source directly in a straight line to the observation position. The source continually emitted photons during one complete galactic rotation and this path was never obscured by anything during that time. The paths of these photons are only curved because the sources that emitted them are rotating around a galactic centre.

The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of what appears in relative space, the continuous streams of photons emitted from 2 rotating galactic sources in euclidian space will be curved and the only mass involved in the curvature of this light path is the mass of the two sources that allows them to rotate around their common galactic centre. On the other hand, in relative space at the present, the 'observer' would 'see' the curved photon path as a straight line quanta only under certain conditions.

Hi md65536, Questions one and two are mutually exclusive and your answers indicate that you are not discussing the real world in the present. Say you had an observation point that was stationary relative to the centre of rotation of the source. (1.1) would you observe this photon stream if you made continuous discrete observations from this location? Euclid had a similar theory but his was reversed i.e. the light shot out of the eye directly to the stars on opening your eyes at night. Please note that the attached image shows the path of light flowing from the source during one complete galactic rotation from the perspective of the source i.e. path = 1,4 4,3 3,2 2,1 and 1,0. Consider 1,4 as the photons from location 1 after 4 quarters of rotation and 4,3 as the photons from location 4 after 3 quarters of rotation etc down to 1,0 the original start point of the rotating source at the present time after 1 complete rotation. The correct order of the light coming into the observer is 1,4 2,3 3,2 4,1 and 1,0 and this change just requires flipping the paths shown along the vertical 1,0 to 1v axis.

I suppose if you lived in a 2D universe a 2D light cone might work but we need to work out what we are actually observing in 3D in the present before we start adding time dimensions, past or future and extrapolating back to 2D light cones. Consider a source that is rotating around a galactic centre and an observer at a location exactly one galactic year (one complete galactic rotation of the source) away. The photons continuously stream from the source as it rotates and travel directly to the observer at c. At the present time of the observation, 1 galactic year has elapsed and the source has rotated back to its original starting position: (1) is there a continuous stream of photons connecting the observer to the rotating source if the source continues to rotate and emit consistently and the path is never blocked or interfered with during the entire period of the rotation? (2) If you believe this physical photon stream exists in the present: (a) is it a perfectly straight line? (b) is it a curved line? (regardless of whether the source is moving directly away from or towards the observer, just to keep it simple)?

Stephen Hawking discussed applying the Wick rotation to Lorentzian metrics with Roger Penrose in their lecture series, 'The Nature of Space and Time' in 1996, but I am unsure if anything has been developed further along these lines. There is also the issue about the bits that do not translate into reality in euclidian space but any objective, physical process, as you say, would have to consider how these anomalies would be treated in reality.

Hi Imatfaal, It was actually back calculated from various other constants to check their accuracy. I came across the following review 'Photon and Graviton Mass Limits' from Los alamos that covered almost everything, even the particle side in DGP. http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1003 But DGP ( http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603632 ), already at the extremes, is mathematically consistent. i.e. largest Compton wavelength = 13.7 B ly, in reduced form = 13.7/(Pi * 2) = 2.18 B ly. So the Schwarzschild radius for the Planck mass for this reduced largest wavelength is equal to 4.36 B ly or 95 % of the latest calculated time back to the formation of our solar system. As a circle with a circumference of 13.7 B ly also has a diameter of 4.36 B ly (i.e. circle of the largest possible non reduced Compton wavelength in euclidian space) you can also wonder why this distance is also the circumference of the mouth of a theoretical black hole that could contain all of the mass in our visible universe (in one wavelength). DGP looks like it is a model of space time plus a rotation that is improperly represented as 5D even though it is, I suspect, mathematically consistent with the non reduced non euclidian waveform and everything else based off it for the same underlying reason.

It is a bridge because it effectively brings the equations down one dimension and removes the imaginary unit i. This rotation is of interest structurally in that normally an indefinite integral with infinite limits is considered undefined in calculus unless it is a sub part of a higher level cyclic function, that went from one limit to the other during each cycle. If this calculus was not available the imaginary unit i could not be used in any conversion. I'm not sure if an indefinite integral, whose higher level function equates to one cycle, should be considered an improper integral rather than being undefined.

Hi imatfaal, After looking through many papers I am not surprised that Paul Dirac said 'Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation'. Physics is in need of a big audit with better definitions of proofs from first principles because it is a data multiverse in its own structural right. I also came across the workings for 5 different variations (alternate calculations) of the Planck length (it also has a reduced form btw) that back calculate Pi accurately because all the elements only exist in the micro scale from a particle physics perspective. Surely anything that crosses both micro and macro scales (and you do need to do this for any visible matter/dark matter calculations from observations) would need to not only use the correct non reduced forms at the point of the crossover from the micro to the macro, but you also need to make sure that you don't mistake this form change with the extra adjustment required for having a non stationary mass that is also rotating around its galactic center.